2013 Blocking Below the Waist

[TXMike]

Please take a look at the attached document.  Am I missing anything?  Suggestions for clarity?   

[attachment deleted by admin]

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'm assuming that the term "peel back" BBW is the block that a player makes block below the waist toward his own end line.  IMO it would be better if we avoided the term "peel back" and simply used the language in 9.1.6.a.3 itself "...... toward his own end line."

[BNE-Ref]

Agreed with NVFOA_Ump - I think the use of "peel back" is potentially confusing.  Also, I think it might be clearer if it is explicit that backs need to be stationary at the snap.

[Hawkeye]

If you could move the Red "player" in the clock so that the horizontal line segment is running from 9 to 3, this will show a wider angle that is "from the front".  I believe that the intention is that the right foot of the player being blocked is at 3 and the left foot is at 9.

[TXMike]

Then why does it say 10-2?

[NVFOA_Ump]

If you could move the Red "player" in the clock so that the horizontal line segment is running from 9 to 3, this will show a wider angle that is "from the front".  I believe that the intention is that the right foot of the player being blocked is at 3 and the left foot is at 9.

I believe that Hawkeye's suggestion would look something like the attached.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[TXMike]

I don't see any significant difference there.  And I really don't think I could see it on the field when layers are moving.  Both edges of each area look pretty much in the same place.  I understaood Hawk ro be saying the block could come from blocker's 9 oclock and be legal.  I don't think so.

[Hawkeye]

2 to 10 are the front blocks and are the only legal blocks once the ball is out of the zone, but 3 to 9 are legal for unrestricted players while the ball is in the zone (front and side).

My point was that in the figure, you should have the feet of the player such that a line through his feet will intersect the 3 and 9.